study on environmental impact on technologies to use biomass (waste) and convert this into electricity, using LCA methods

1. Environmental ImpactEnvironmental Impact
of different Power Production Techniques using Biomassof different Power Production Techniques using Biomass
P.P.A.J. van Schijndel, J. Huisman,
J.M.N. van Kasteren and F.J.J.G. Janssen
Eindhoven University of Technology
12
Entrée’99Entrée’99

2. ContentsContents
• Introduction
• Biomass Conversion Technologies
• Technical / Economical Ranking
• Environmental Life Cycle Assessment, LCA
• Results and Discussion
• Conclusions
2
12

3. 3
IntroductionIntroduction
Need for Renewable Energy Sources:
• Gravitational Force
– Tidal energy / Hydropower
• Sun (Nuclear Fission)
– Wind / Solar / Hydropower
– Energy from biomass waste or energy crops
• Radioactive Decay Earth Core
– Geothermal energy
2
12

4. • Wastes:
– Organic sludge, garden/agricultural
waste, thinning wood, waste wood
• Energy crops:
– Poplar, miscanthus, rapeseed etc.
Possibilities in The Netherlands:
– Biomass waste: 150 P(1015
) J
– Equals 4% of total NL power production
BiomassBiomass SourcesSources
4
12

5. Waste:
• Municipal solid waste
• Sewage sludge
• Industrial waste
• Scrap wood
• Plastic waste
• Paper sludge
• Shredder waste
Most important (bio)fuelsMost important (bio)fuels
12
Biomass:
• Forestry Thinning
• Cutting from parks and
gardens
• Residues from wood
processing
• Agricultural residues
• Energy crops
Novem, 1995
4a.

6. Biomass Conversion TechnologiesBiomass Conversion Technologies
5.
12
Fuel gas
Charcoal
Pyrolysis-oil
Heat
Synthesis
Gasturbine
Gas engine
Steam turbine
Slurry production
Upgrading
etc.
Primary product Process technology Secondary productConversion technology
Gasoline, diesel
Methanol
Electricity
Heat
Slurry-fuel
etc.
Gasification
Pyrolysis
Combustion
Related Technologies:
•Co-combustion and co-gasification
•Hydro Thermal Upgrading, HTU

7. Technical and Economical RankingTechnical and Economical Ranking
Criteria:
• Technique proven (Pilot Plant);
• Economical feasible within 5 years;
• Feasible in The Netherlands: different
wastes like wood, 5-30 MWe
Sub criteria: Price, Efficiency, Flexibility
6.
12

8. Final Ranking,Final Ranking,
7.
12
Of most promising biomass conversion techniques
Table based on Huisman (1999)
Rank Technique / route
Price electricity
EURO / kWh
Electrical
Efficiency
1 Co-combustion in a powder coal power
plant with steam cycle
0,02 – 0,06 32 – 44 %
2 Co-combustion of gasifier gas in a normal
gas/coal power plant with steam cycle
0,04 – 0,08 30 %
3 Co-combustion of gasifier gas in a gas
power plant (STEG) Combined cycle
0,045 – 0,10 35 %
4 stand alone gasification (atmospheric) in
fluidised circulating bed with combined
cycle, cold gas cleanup, system
0,055 – 0,12 40 %
5 Stand alone combustion in a circulating
fluidised bed reactor with steam cycle
0,055 – 0,09 22 – 28 %
Fossil Electricity NL 1997: 0,03 EURO/kWh

9. Structure of LCAStructure of LCA
8.
12
1. Goal and scope
definition
2. Inventarisation
3. Classification and
normalisation
4. Evaluation Weighting effects
Environmental effects
Environmental impacts
Product/ technique Functional unit
Impact table
Environmental profile
Eco-indicator

10. LCA of Biomass TechniquesLCA of Biomass Techniques
9.
12
Comparison of techniques:
• Combustion stand alone
• Gasification stand alone
• Co-combustion in coal power plant
• co-combustion in municipal waste
incinerator
LCA Method, Goal and Functional Unit

11. LCA: Goal + Functional UnitLCA: Goal + Functional Unit
10.
12
Goal:
• Power production from clean waste
biomass (wood)
Functional Unit:
• 425 TJ electrical power from biomass
equal to 966 TJ calorific value (LHV)
1 TJ = 1012
J

12. LCA: Functional UnitLCA: Functional Unit
12
11.
Co-combustion
Coal Power Plant
η = 44%
Coal Power Plant
η = 44%
Waste incineration
no biomass
η = 21%
Waste incineration
with biomass
η = 21%
NL Electricity Prod.
(c+e)-(f+g) MWh
a kton Coal
b kton Biomass
c MWh d kton
waste
e MWh
a kton Coal f MWh
d kton
waste
b kton
Biomass
A. Biomass co-combustionA. Biomass co-combustion
+
B. Biomass incineration in MSWB. Biomass incineration in MSW
g MWh

13. LCA:LCA: Choice of system bordersChoice of system borders
12
12.
Biomass formation
Collection and transport
Conversion:
Co-combustion, combustion in
MSW, gasification, combustion
Electricity supply
System border
Pre-treatment:
Drying, size reduction, pelletise

14. 0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
G
reenhouse
O
zone
Acid.
Eutroph.
H.m
etals
Carcin.
W
.sm
og
S.sm
og
Pesticid
Energy
Solid
MSW incineration Co-combustion Combustion Gasification
LCA resultsLCA results NormalisationNormalisation
13.
12
Simapro 3.0 Eco Indicator ‘95/ Europe g / normalisation

15. 14.
12
Simapro 3.0 Eco Indicator ‘95/ Europe g / indicator
LCA resultsLCA results Eco indicator ‘95Eco indicator ‘95
0,00
20000,00
40000,00
60000,00
80000,00
100000,00
120000,00
140000,00
MSW incineration Co-combustion Combustion Gasification
Solid
Energy
Pesticid
S.smog
W.smog
Carcin.
H.metals
Eutroph.
Acid.
Ozone
Greenhouse

16. 12
LCA results energy cropsLCA results energy crops
15.
Simapro 3.0 Eco Indicator ‘95/ Europe g / normalisation
-1000
1000
3000
5000
7000
9000
11000
G
reenhouse
O
zone
Acid.
Eutroph.
H.m
etals
C
arcin.
W
.sm
og
S.sm
og
Pesticid
Energy
Solid
Gasification Gasification poplar as energy crop

17. 12
LCA results energy cropsLCA results energy crops
Simapro 3.0 Eco Indicator ‘95/ Europe g / indicator
16.
-50000,00
0,00
50000,00
100000,00
150000,00
200000,00
250000,00
300000,00
350000,00
Gasification Gasification poplar as energy crop
Solid
Energy
Pesticid
S.smog
W.smog
Carcin.
H.metals
Eutroph.
Acid.
Ozone
Greenhouse

18. • Co-combustion gives best score due to
highest power production efficiency;
• Efficiency of process plays major role;
• Global warming, acidification and heavy
metals most important impact scores;
• Choice of functional unit does not
influence ranking;
• Biomass wastes score better than energy
crops (pesticide/eutrophication).
12
LCA ConclusionsLCA Conclusions
17.

19. LCA DiscussionLCA Discussion
12
• Advantages LCA:
– Fully quantitative
– Detailed study
• Disadvantages LCA:
– Detailed: data collection
– Long-winded
– Not taken into account: depletion, solid emissions,
local environmental aspects
– Non specified substances
– Normalisation and evaluation are subjective
17a.

20. • Techno. / economic ranking gives
same outcome as LCA study;
• Co-combustion: sustainable and
economical feasible power source;
• LCA method lacks impact category
Abiotic Depletion (exergy analysis);
• Co-generation to be investigated.
General ConclusionsGeneral Conclusions
12
18.

21. LCA inventarisatie
Proces
1.
Proces
2.
grondstoffen transport
product
Gebruik
emissies emissies
elektra elektra elektra
Afvalfase
recycling recycling
Emissies ook bij:
recycling
Afvalfase
emissies
transport
13.

22. Milieu effecten bij een LCAMilieu effecten bij een LCA
Eco-Indicator ‘95
•Broeikaseffect
•Ozonlaagaantasting
•Pesticiden en Carcinogenen
•Zware metalen in lucht en water
•Zomersmog
•Wintersmog
•Verzuring
•Vermesting
CML (1992)
•Abiotische en Biotische uitputting
•Broeikaseffect
•Ozonlaagaantasting
•Humane toxiciteit
•Ecotoxiciteit
•Fotochemische Oxydantvorming
•Verzuring en Vermesting
•Water warmte en Stank
•Lawaai
•Aantasting landschap / versnippering
•Slachtoffers
14.

23. Milieu effecten bij een LCA
Nadelen Eco Indicator:
• Uitputting grondstoffen en brandstoffen
wordt niet meegenomen
• Idem voor andere milieu effecten
• Subjectieve weging van de effectscores
• Milieuthema’s anders geformuleerd
15.

24. Verschil CML en Eco indicator
• CML methode:
∑kg eq. X classif. = effectscore
effectscore / Tot. Nl evaluatie
• Eco indicator
∑ kg eq. X classif. = effectscore
effectscore / Tot. Nl weging evaluatie
16.

25. • Afweging resultaten met bekende
milieu-impact data:
– Op Wereldschaal
– Op Europese schaal
– Op Landelijke schaal
• Milieu equivalenten normaliseren op
de gekozen schaal equivalenten.
Normalisatie Stap
22.

26. Milieuthema Eenheid Wereld Nederland
Broeikaseffect kg/jr 1012
37,7 0,377
Smog kg/jr 109
3,74 0,0374
Verzuring kg/jr 109
286 2,86
Vermesting kg/jr 109
74,8 0,748
Normalisatie Stap,Normalisatie Stap, 22
Guinée, 1993
Normalisatie = Effect / Bijdrage (kg/jr)
23.

27. • Vergelijken van de scores.
• Gevoeligheids analyse van de data,
controle op geldigheid resultaten.
• Aanpak van de studie; peer review.
• Verdere stap:
– Optellen milieu effecten tot 1 waarde
– vergelijk op basis totaal milieu impact
Evaluatie resultaten
25.

28. • Wordt vaak niet uitgevoerd!
• Belangrijk voor productie en product
ontwerpers (ingenieurs)
• Richten op plaatsen waar belangrijke
milieu impacts optreden
• Inkoop beleid aanpassen
• Productie en product aanpassing
De verbeter analyseDe verbeter analyse
29.

29. ConclusiesConclusies
LCA is een potentieel goede methode,
echter:
• Niet iedereen weet goed wat wel en
niet met een LCA kan.
• Onvoldoende gecertificeerde
databases (kennis blijft geheim)
• Gevoeligheidsanalyses ontbreken
34.